CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange

To: CQ Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SS SSB And Your Callsign In The Exchange
From: Michael Coslo <mjc5@psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:01:04 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Nov 18, 2008, at 8:44 PM, Ken Adams wrote:

> Well, this is quite a lively discussion.
>
> This was the 75th running of a domestic contest steeped in  
> tradition.  I
> like tradition.
> We had very high scores this year and participation appears to be up.
> Thanks to all of you who got on the air and helped all of us enjoy SS.
>
> And for the record, I am in favor of leaving the exchange sequence as
> is.  It's worked fine for decades and will for many to come.


Even though I think the doubled portion of the exchange is pretty odd,  
and a method of "cheating" is readily available by simply looking at  
the logged callsign, there is another matter here.

If the callsign needs to be exchanged twice, and if not exchanging it  
twice is basis for disqualification, then there is a real problem:

All logging software must be changed so that the second exchange of  
callsign must be entered manually and in proper order.

The cabrillo format must be changed so that the second and manually  
entered callsign  shows up in it's proper order, and so that the  
changed logging software knows where to put it's properly formatted  
exchange.

Otherwise the contest sponsor has absolutely no way of determining if  
the rules were followed - short of the schemes of making everyone  
record and submit their entire operation, and hiring armies of people  
with an extremely high boredom threshold to listen to them. And if you  
cannot determine if a rule was adhered to, you cannot determine if it  
was violated. How do we know that a person did or did not send their  
callsign in the proper sequence?

And there is where I think lies the crux of the problem. That is a lot  
of work just so that some people who have a linear approach to the  
exchange can be satisfied.

Much better to consider the entire communication as part of the  
exchange. Then there is no "crime".  Individual Ops can determine if  
that is good enough for them, and Nil at will and discretion.

-73 de Mike N3LI -


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>